Piracy in islam?

[Liks]

I downloaded movies/softwares that are full version
In my state i cannot nowhere to buy something original
I dont have incomes....so?

 

[AnonymousPoster]

I downloaded movies/softwares that are full version
In my state i cannot nowhere to buy something original
I dont have incomes....so?

So don't download them. Movies are boring, dud, crap, the lot,

Do something better with your time,

You have no income? Go get a job if possible. :thumbs_up

 

[Abdul Fattah]

This is actually a topic I've wondered about to. If you live in a country where it is illegal, I guess it's not ok, since as Muslims we are supposed to respect the rules of the country we live in (unless it contradicts Islamic rules). But strictly theoretically speaking, I see no reason why intellectual property should be protected in Islam.

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

ive researched this and i think piracy is best avoided.

may Allah forgive us for what we've wrongfully taken


most pirated stuff (movies games etc) is non-beneficial anyway


so there is hikmah in avoiding it

 

[AnonymousPoster]

This is actually a topic I've wondered about to. If you live in a country where it is illegal, I guess it's not ok, since as Muslims we are supposed to respect the rules of the country we live in (unless it contradicts Islamic rules). But strictly theoretically speaking, I see no reason why intellectual property should be protected in Islam.

Ohh intellectual stuff in Islaam, yeah I see no point in that.

Oh I dunno..:thumbs_up

 

[Trumble]

I don't see the issue; theft is theft. It's no different from stealing a DVD from a store, downloading is just the 'new' means of distribution and in a few years will take over as the source of most legal sales as well (like iTunes). You can't say it's OK to steal a cow but fine to steal a sheep.

'Intellectual property' is quite a complicated concept, but not the one relevant here.

 

[Azy]

I like this topic. We're not talking about theft here, we're talking about breach of copyright.
You or I do not have the right to copy whatever film/song it is you want without permission from the copyright holder, but if you do it is not theft.

If you had a machine that could make an exact replica of a Ford Ranger, would anyone accuse you of theft?

 

[Liks]

This is actually a topic I've wondered about to. If you live in a country where it is illegal, I guess it's not ok, since as Muslims we are supposed to respect the rules of the country we live in (unless it contradicts Islamic rules). But strictly theoretically speaking, I see no reason why intellectual property should be protected in Islam.

we are new state and its not against the law yet....

 

[Abdu-l-Majeed]

As-Salam alaykum, my dear akhi!

http://islam-qa.com/en/ref/102352/crack

 

[Liks]

i dont sell them

 

[Woodrow]

This can be a difficult problem. A short rule is if something is freely put up on line by the original author or copyright owner, it is fair to consider it public domain. However, that is seldom the case. Much is put up by people that do not have the distribution rights, it is theft and those download them are receiving stolen property.


There is plenty of material available as public domain, check the sources before downloading and do not encourage theft.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Selam aleykum Liks

we are new state and its not against the law yet....

If there is no law against I see no reason against it, but I am not certain and Allah subhana wa ta'ala knows best.

Hi trumble

I don't see the issue; theft is theft.

I strongly disagree, we are dealing with two separate processes concerning two separate concepts.

* Theft is when you disown something.
* Piracy is when you make a copy something.

* Theft concerns material property from an individual.
* Piracy concerns intellectual property of an individual.

* In theft the victim no longer is in possession of his/her item. There is a loss of property.
* In theft the "victim" maintains his/her possession. There is no loss of property.

* When a state forbids theft, it disallows people taking something that already belongs to someone else.
* When a state forbids piracy, it disallows people making something new that is equal to the possessions of someone else.

So theft and piracy are not the same thing. Therefor you cannot claim that piracy should be forbidden for the same reasons as theft is forbidden. A whole new line of arguments should be brought up.
Unless of course, you main old fashion piracy, like: "Arr matie, I'm gonna commandeer your ship" In which case it is equal to theft afterall. ^_^

'Intellectual property' is quite a complicated concept, but not the one relevant here.

Again I disagree, it is very crucial. When you claim that material theft = piracy; then you are implying that intellectual property is self-evident and equal to material property. That looks like a big baseless assumption if you ask me.

 

[Whatsthepoint]

Making a copy of something without the author's permission is stealing. It may not disown the author directly, but it decreases his or her potential profits.

 

[Woodrow]

Making a copy of something without the author's permission is stealing. It may not disown the author directly, but it decreases his or her potential profits.

True, it does deprive the author ofhis right ful earnings. It is not stealing in the sense of taking cash money from a person. It is refusal to pay for work performed.

If you mow the neighbor's yard, charge $10 and he doesn't pay you, isn't that theft? He did not take any money from you.

Same thing when you download copyrighted material.

 

[Faye]

True, it does deprive the author ofhis right ful earnings. It is not stealing in the sense of taking cash money from a person. It is refusal to pay for work performed.

If you mow the neighbor's yard, charge $10 and he doesn't pay you, isn't that theft? He did not take any money from you.

Same thing when you download copyrighted material.

This works only if you and your neighbor had a previous contract for you to pay him $10 for mowing. Suppose he comes and mows it, without your knowledge or permission. Are you required to pay him?

 

[Faye]

Copyright According to Shariah
By Mufti Taqi Usmani
Q.) Can you please explain the Islamic injunctions about "copyright", especially about the copyright on computer software? The questions are: (i) Can we register a book under the Copyright Act which bars the people from publishing that book without permission of the copyright holder?
(ii) If something is registered under the law of copyright, should we abide by the restrictions imposed by that law?
(iii) Can a copyright holder sell his right of publishing to another person for a monetary gain?
A.) The question of "copyright" is related to a wider concept, generally known as the concept of "intellectual property". In previous days the concept of ownership was confined to those tangible commodities only which can be perceived through our five senses. But the speedy progress in the means of communication gave birth to the new concept of "intellectual property" which extended the concept of ownership to some intangible objects also. The theory of "intellectual property" contemplates that whoever applies his mental labor to invent something is the owner of the fruits of his labor.
If a person has invented a certain instrument, he does not own the instrument only, but he also owns the formula he has used for the first time to invent it. Therefore, nobody can use that formula without his permission. Similarly, if a person has written a book, he is the exclusive owner of the right to publish it, and nobody has any right to publish that book without his permission. This right of an author or an inventor is termed as his "intellectual property". It is also implied in this theory that the owner of such rights can sell them to others like any other tangible objects. The law of "copyright" has come into existence in order to secure such rights and to give legal protection to this kind of property.
It is obvious that the concept of intellectual property on which the law of copyright is based is a new phenomenon created by the rapid progress of industry and the means of communication, therefore, this concept is not expressly mentioned in the Holy Qur'an or in the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam.
The acceptability or otherwise of such new concept which are not clearly mentioned in the original resources of Islamic jurisprudence can only be inferred from the general principles laid down by the Shariah. As the views of the jurists may differ while applying these principles to the new situations, there is always a wide scope of difference of opinion in such cases. The question of "intellectual property" has also been a subject of discussion among the contemporary Muslim scholars of Shariah whose opinions are different about its acceptability in Shariah.
A group of contemporary scholars does not approve the concept of "intellectual property". According to them the concept of ownership in Shariah is confined to the tangible objects only. They contend that there is no precedent in the Holy Qur'an, in Sunnah or in the juristic views of the Muslim jurists where an intangible object has been subjected to private ownership or to sale and purchase. They further argue that "knowledge" in Islam is not the property of an individual, nor can he prevent others from acquiring knowledge, whereas the concept of "intellectual property" leads to monopoly of some individuals over knowledge, which can never be accepted by Islam.
On the other hand, some contemporary scholars take the concept of "intellectual property" as acceptable in Shariah. They say that there is no express provision in the Holy Qur'an or in the Sunnah which restricts the ownership to the tangible objects only.
There are several intangible rights accepted and maintained by the Shariah, and there are several instances where such intangible rights have been transferred to others for some monetary considerations.
They contend that the concept of "intellectual property" does in no way restrict the scope of knowledge, because the law of "copyright" does not prevent a person from reading a book or from availing of a new invention for his individual benefit. On the contrary, the law of "copyright" prevents a person from the wide commercial use of an object on the ground that the person who has invented it by his mental labor is more entitled to its commercial benefits, and any other person should not be allowed to reap the monetary fruits of the former's labor without his permission. The author of a book who has worked day and night to write a book is obviously the best person who deserves its publication for commercial purposes. If every other person is allowed to publish the book without the author's permission, it will certainly violate the rights of the author, and the law of copyright protects him from such violation of his rights.
Both of these views have their own arguments. I have analyzed the arguments of both sides in my Arabic treatise "Bai-ul-Huqooq" and have preferred the second view over the first, meaning thereby that a book can be registered under the Copyright Act, and the right of its publication can also be transferred to some other person for a monetary consideration.
This is an answer to your question no. (i) and no. (iii). Coming to the question no. (ii), I would like to add that if the law of copyright in a country prevents its citizens from publishing a book without the permission of a copyright holder, all the citizens must abide by this legal restriction. The reasons are manifold.
Firstly, it violates the right of the copyright holder which is, affirmed by the Shariah principles also according to the preferable view, as mentioned earlier.
Secondly, I have mentioned that the views of the contemporary scholars are different on the concept of "intellectual property" and none of them is in clear contravention of the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah. In such situations, an Islamic state can prefer one view on the other, and if it does so by a specific legislation, its decision is binding even on those scholars who have opposite view. It is an accepted position in the Islamic jurisprudence that the legislation of an Islamic state resolves the juristic dispute in a manner not expressly mentioned in the Holy Qur'an or in the Sunnah. Therefore, if an Islamic state promulgates a law in favor of the concept of "intellectual property" without violating any provision of the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah, the same will be binding on all its citizens. Those who have an opposite view can express their standpoint as an academic discussion, but they cannot violate the law in their practice.
Thirdly, even if the government is not a pure Islamic government, every citizen enters into an express or a tacit agreement with it to the effect that he will abide by its laws in so far as they do not compel him to anything which is not permissible in Shariah. Therefore, if the law requires a citizen to refrain from an act which was otherwise permissible (not mandatory) in Shariah he must refrain from it.
Even those scholars who do not accept the concept of "intellectual property" do not hold that is mandatory requirement of Shariah to violate the rights recognized by this concept. Their view is that it is permissible for a person to publish a book without its author's permission. Therefore, if the law prevents them from this "permissible" act, they should refrain from it as their agreement of citizenship requires them to do so.
Therefore, it is necessary for every citizen to abide by the law of copyright unless it compels a person to do an impermissible act, or to refrain him from a mandatory act under the Shariah.

 

[Uthman]

As far as I'm concerned, the whole 'loss of profits' argument doesn't really stand. In the vast majority of cases, if the files weren't available to download for free, then the downloader probably wouldn't have bothered to buy it from the shop.

 

[Woodrow]

This works only if you and your neighbor had a previous contract for you to pay him $10 for mowing. Suppose he comes and mows it, without your knowledge or permission. Are you required to pay him?

That is true. Without an agreement there would be no obligation.

In the case of copy right violations, there is a contract, called copyright laws. Sadly, it seems most people never read them and fail to understand that by violating the law, they are violating the contact and depriving a worker of his salary.

 

[Faye]

A group of contemporary scholars does not approve the concept of "intellectual property". According to them the concept of ownership in Shariah is confined to the tangible objects only. They contend that there is no precedent in the Holy Qur'an, in Sunnah or in the juristic views of the Muslim jurists where an intangible object has been subjected to private ownership or to sale and purchase. They further argue that "knowledge" in Islam is not the property of an individual, nor can he prevent others from acquiring knowledge, whereas the concept of "intellectual property" leads to monopoly of some individuals over knowledge, which can never be accepted by Islam.

I agree with these people though.

They contend that the concept of "intellectual property" does in no way restrict the scope of knowledge, because the law of "copyright" does not prevent a person from reading a book or from availing of a new invention for his individual benefit. On the contrary, the law of "copyright" prevents a person from the wide commercial use of an object on the ground that the person who has invented it by his mental labor is more entitled to its commercial benefits, and any other person should not be allowed to reap the monetary fruits of the former's labor without his permission. The author of a book who has worked day and night to write a book is obviously the best person who deserves its publication for commercial purposes. If every other person is allowed to publish the book without the author's permission, it will certainly violate the rights of the author, and the law of copyright protects him from such violation of his rights.

A lot of pirated software/books are free (on the internet). The pirate is thus deriving no commercial benefit from it. He is just trying to spread the knowledge present in the book so that you don't have to pay an arm and a leg to gain that knowledge. Finally, while an author may deserve to benefit from his 'intellectual property', what about his publishing house, who gets the majority of the profit, and his heirs for three generations, none of whom had anything to do with the book?

 

[Faye]

That is true. Without an agreement there would be no obligation.

In the case of copy right violations, there is a contract, called copyright laws. Sadly, it seems most people never read them and fail to understand that by violating the law, they are violating the contact and depriving a worker of his salary.

You never entered into a contract with the author, at least not in the case of books. And I don't think the 'I agree' statement at the installing of a program is a valid contract islamically, though I may be wrong.

If you're talking about a contract with the state to obey its laws, what if your state does not have copyright laws, or you're underage?